UK Creationist zoo wins education award

[Julia]

I'm not sure if this is the right section for the following story but here goes:

A few weeks ago P Z Meyers' wonderful blog "Pharyngula" carried the story of how Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, which pushes a weird variant of Young Earth Creationism, has won an award from the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...in_a_prize.php

This being England, NAZF shies away from the blatant batpoo insanity of its American counterparts. Owner Anthony Bush has worked out that the planet is about 100,000 years old and Adam and Eve were created around 21,000 years ago. None of your "the world is only 6000 years old" nonsense here, then! A large poster outside the primate enclosure explains to visitors that apes are NOT related to humans, and the zoo's website is full of misinformation about animals (ie "Most reptiles lay eggs. Mammals do not." Have they not heard about the duck-billed platypus?)

Vist "Sink the Ark" for more info: http://www.ark.isambard.com/

According to LotC's website:

The Quality Badge is awarded to organisations which have pledged to engage in an ongoing process to sustain good-quality learning outside the classroom and have demonstrated that they meet six quality indicators. These indicators show the provider:

1. has a process in place to assist users to plan the learning experience effectively;
2. provides accurate information about its offer;
3. provides activities, experience or resources which meet learner needs;
4. reviews the experience and acts on feedback;
5. meets the needs of the users; and
6. has safety management processes in place to manage risk effectively.

I find it astonishing that the words "provide accurate information" refer only to the offer of school visits, not to the information on display.


Teachers planning to take children to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm MUST be aware of its creationist agenda. Do they regard it as a cheaper alternative to Bristol Zoo and tell the kids to ignore the anti-scientific nonsense on display? The UK is mercifully free of the deep-rooted fundamentalist/creationist tradition that feeds Ken Ham and his merry band of idiots in the USA, so it's hard to believe that children are taken to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm to acquaint them with the other side of the manufactured evolution vs creation "controversy".

I e-mailed LOtC to protest their absurd decision to give an award to this ludicrous outfit. Here's their reply:

[quote]Dear Sir/Madam

Many thanks for your email concerning the recent award of the Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm.

The criteria for awarding the LOtC Quality Badge are that the organisation must offer good quality learning outside the classroom and manage risk effectively. The Council for Learning Outside the Classroom is very committed to equality and we will award the LOtC Quality Badge to an organisation that can demonstrate that it meets these criteria; past awards have included Interfaith Kirklees and Canterbury Cathedral without any implied endorsement of their religious base.

CLOtC believes that an important aim of learning outside the classroom is allowing children and young people access to education that challenges assumptions and allows them to experience a range of viewpoints; giving them the tools needed to be proactive in their own learning.

I hope this addresses your concerns, please do get back to us if you have any further comments or questions

Kind regards

The LOtC Quality Badge team
www.lotcqualitybadge.org.uk[/quote]


I haven't replied yet, and I'd be interested to see what you all make of this response.



SOD IT! I didn't see the other thread about the same topic. Must pay more attention...

[smudge]

I haven't replied yet, and I'd be interested to see what you all make of this response.



SOD IT! I didn't see the other thread about the same topic. Must pay more attention...

LotC are ducking the issue. Infuriating.
There is an obvious difference between a school trip visiting Canterbury cathedral and one visiting any site which willfully distorts facts to promote a view. Canterbury cathedral is a historically fascinating building with obvious religious connections. As such, it is unique. There are many Zoos. Most promote an understanding of the animals and their natural environment and are wonderful places for children to learn. NAZF is presenting an intentionally distorted view of the facts and as such cannot be considered in any way a worthwhile way of educating children.

[Tony Williams]

LotC are ducking the issue. Infuriating.
There is an obvious difference between a school trip visiting Canterbury cathedral and one visiting any site which willfully distorts facts to promote a view. Canterbury cathedral is a historically fascinating building with obvious religious connections. As such, it is unique. There are many Zoos. Most promote an understanding of the animals and their natural environment and are wonderful places for children to learn. NAZF is presenting an intentionally distorted view of the facts and as such cannot be considered in any way a worthwhile way of educating children.

x2. I suggest that Smudge points this out to them, forcefully. This "zoo" isn't about information, but disinformation.

[smudge]

x2. I suggest that Smudge points this out to them, forcefully. This "zoo" isn't about information, but disinformation.

Done!
Good job I had a quiet morning with work!
Will be interesting to see if I get the same response as Julia....

[smudge]

I have just received exactly the same response that Julia received. Damn quick. Obviously standard procedure.
I have responded. I will post again if I hear any more....

[smudge]

Ann widdecombe shares her wisdom;

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/...manist+Blog%29

[Tony Williams]

Ann widdecombe shares her wisdom;

Oh dear. I do find it particularly depressing when an intelligent, well-educated and apparently quite sensible (for a politician) person defends this sort of claptrap.

[DrS]

intelligent, well-educated and apparently quite sensible

But then again, it's no surprise when Anne Widdecombe does ...

[Dubious Dick]

But then again, it's no surprise when Anne Widdecombe does ...

Second that!! Isn't she a fairly muscular papist anyway?

On the stupidity of the LOTC award to the creationist bs. Seems their CEO has a degree in environmental biology!

Anyway, I briefly checked their website to see where their funding comes from and could not get a clear picture. As a Charity does a complaint to the Charity Commissioners make any sense?

Wish I could help more but time v.short. Good luck with hunting this bit of loopyness down and un-looping it.

[Dubious Dick]

Sorry. Couldn't resist. A short sharp mail to the Council of LOTC:

F.T.A.O. The Council

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am writing in connection with your award to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm.

Since you clearly do not care whether our children are learning or being fed absolutely factually incorrect history, then if I set up a Zoo dedicated to the Church of Scientology (no more ludicrous than the idea that the Earth is only 100 000 years old) I assume I will be eligible to apply as well, and stand a good chance of winning if I do it well?

I look forward to your response.

Thank you,
Richard Sutherland

[smudge]

@Dick. I'd put money on you getting the standard response both Julia and I did. My response to this has (so far) been ignored.

@Julia. Did you respond and get a (second) reply...?

Not sure if there is any milage in Dick's Charity Commission idea. Anyone have any thoughts?
I'm pushed for time right now...

[Matt]

Well of course reporting them to the charities commission is only viable if they've broken their rules and are a registered charity.

I can't see that they are in fact a registered charity. The companies house Web Check service allows me to browse by company name and I can't see that they're a registered company.

The whois information on their domain name shows them to be a partnership so much the same as if it was just a single person doign anythign a single person is allowed to do.

Zoos do need to be licensed by the local authority, in this case it looks like this will be North Somerset

http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Environ...ncompleted.htm

This may be the activist's best bet for persecuting this organisation, and lets be honest here that's what you're suggesting isn't it. However the object here is their failure with regards to animal care rather then their failures as educators. It is however what got them chucked out of BIAZA

There is no law decreeing universal truth with penalties for disagreement. If only science could sue for libel then their outright lies could be corrected but as it stands you can lie about facts, the dead and institutions (so long as they don't have corporate personhood) as much as you like with total impunity.

[smudge]

Well of course reporting them to the charities commission is only viable if they've broken their rules and are a registered charity.

I can't see that they are in fact a registered charity. The companies house Web Check service allows me to browse by company name and I can't see that they're a registered company.

The whois information on their domain name shows them to be a partnership so much the same as if it was just a single person doign anythign a single person is allowed to do.

Zoos do need to be licensed by the local authority, in this case it looks like this will be North Somerset

http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Environ...ncompleted.htm

This may be the activist's best bet for persecuting this organisation, and lets be honest here that's what you're suggesting isn't it. However the object here is their failure with regards to animal care rather then their failures as educators. It is however what got them chucked out of BIAZA

There is no law decreeing universal truth with penalties for disagreement. If only science could sue for libel then their outright lies could be corrected but as it stands you can lie about facts, the dead and institutions (so long as they don't have corporate personhood) as much as you like with total impunity.

Thanks Matt. I think you are correct. They (LOTC) claim to be a 'charity' but are not a 'registered charity'. I have no clue about the exact distinctions, loopholes, or legalese involved, but suspect it means they can do what they damn well please and still claim 'independence' and a certain 'moral' validity.

I might take issue with the "persecuting this organisation" line! I'd certainly like to see the creationist zoo closed altogether. This particular argument though, is against LOTC's ridiculous decision to award NAFZ an "award of excellence". Despite the obvious contradictions with this and their stated objective; to promote education.

[Matt]

Whoops I was talking about Noah's Ark Farm Zoo not being a charity or registered company.

Learning Outside the Classroom on the other hand are a registered charity.

The Council for Learning Outside the Classroom is a registered charity, number 1127802, and a company limited by guarantee- incorporated and registered in England and Wales with company number 6778701. Our registered office is 9 Breams Buildings, London EC4A 1QL.

http://www.lotc.org.uk/Contact.aspx

You can look up their details on the Charities Commission Website

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...idiaryNumber=0

It's newly registered and so hasn't filed any accounts yet.

You can get a list of trustees and the other charitiess with which they're associated.

The charities commission also have guidance on making a complaint.

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/...lic_index.aspx

However having reviewed their statement about when they get involved it doesn't look to me like LOTC are in breech of any regulation. The commission specifically mention cases where a the complaint consists of a disagreement with a decision made by a charity as something they wouldn't get involved with.

[smudge]

Ah! Many thanks Matt!
Strangely, I'd failed to find them listed on the Charity Commission site AND failed to find their Reg number on the LOTC site. Doh! The hazards of multi tasking...